Introduced populations of ragweed show as much evolutionary potential as native populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Invasive species are a global economic and ecological problem. They also offer an opportunity to understand evolutionary processes in a colonizing context. The impacts of evolutionary factors, such as genetic variation, on the invasion process are increasingly appreciated, but there remain gaps in the empirical literature. The adaptive potential of populations can be quantified using genetic variance–covariance matrices (G) , which encapsulate the heritable genetic variance in a population. Here, we use a multivariate Bayesian approach to assess the adaptive potential of invasive populations of ragweed ( Ambrosia artemisiifolia ), a serious allergen and agricultural weed. We compared several aspects of genetic architecture and the structure of G matrices between three native and three introduced populations, based on phenotypic data collected in a field common garden experiment. We found moderate differences in the quantitative genetic architecture among populations, but we did not find that introduced populations suffer from a limited adaptive potential or increased genetic constraint compared with native populations. Ragweed has an annual life history, is an obligate outcrosser, and produces very large numbers of seeds and pollen grains. These characteristics, combined with the significant additive genetic variance documented here, suggest ragweed will be able to respond quickly to selection pressures in both its native and introduced ranges.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".